ISSUE: GREEN SCISSORS PROGRAMS

With the dire fiscal situation of state governments nationally, all lawmakers are looking for ways to cut budgets. One increasingly important fiscal reform is called “green scissors,” and it includes all efforts to end government subsidies for environmentally harmful behaviors. By decreasing the investment that taxpayers make in harmful projects and policies, you can reduce budget deficits and harness market forces to improve the overall financial and ecological health of your state. 

Key benefits of this approach include:

• Freeing up revenue for more critical programs
• Reducing government subsidies for pollution, environmental damage, and waste

Included in this brief are tips to assist in the creation of a green scissors program in your state, which could stop harmful subsidies and cut spending. 

Please contact us by email at [email protected] or at 608/252-9800 for more information, or contact the national Green Scissors Campaign by calling Eric Pica of Friends of the Earth at 202-783-7400 (ex. 229). They are happy to assist with questions, organizing, and fundraising to assist with state green scissors efforts. In addition, the Environmental Law & Policy Center (ELPC) is working to coordinate green scissors efforts in the Midwest (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, and WI); the contacts at ELPC are Charles Kubert at 312-795- 3716, or Kappy Laing at 312-795-3723.

Cutting Subsidies / Green Scissors

The Green Scissors Campaign estimates that they have helped cut $24 billion in subsidies and programs by focusing on bad federal spending. State governments can save millions by ending subsidies for environmentally harmful programs.

Energy

While energy production is necessary for a healthy economy, many states have programs which subsidize highly polluting energy generation. Legislators should look closely at state expenses in support of nuclear energy and fossil fuels, such as coal. Recent studies have shown the enormous health costs caused by soot from coal-fired power plants and the dangers and difficulty of radioactive waste disposal from nuclear power plants. Any money spent to further these activities will result in wasted money now and in the future, due to the costs to citizens’ health. Only energy supports for renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, or biomass can prove cost-effective in the long-term.

For more information, read the press release, “Energy Polluters Poised to Reap $62 Billion in Taxpayer Handouts: Already Out-of-Control Government Giveaways to Oil, Coal and Nuclear Power Could Double, Groups Say,” at Green Scissors online.

Transportation

Despite numerous studies, which show the mounting costs our cities and towns are paying for increased road-building, massive investment of state dollars continues to be spent on unnecessary highway construction. Sprawl, economic decline, loss of open space, increased air pollution, and increased traffic congestion are just some of the consequences which result from this wasteful spending. In addition, any new roads which are built will require future maintenance costs, thus creating a permanent tax burden.

Agriculture

Many farm programs that are promoted as helping family farmers actually lead to overproduction, declining water quality, dependency on taxpayer subsidies, and the growth of corporate factory farming to the detriment of those same family farmers. In addition, these kinds of farm policies are not just bad for family farmers they are also environmentally damaging. Lawmakers should not be afraid to study farm programs and fertilizer and pesticide subsidies closely to see if they are benefiting who they are supposed to, and if they promote better farms and communities rather than pollution and corporate factory farms.

Business Subsides / Tax Incentives

Many of the biggest subsidies and tax breaks are within the corporate tax code. Any arguments which support government subsidies for polluters as a type of “economic development” tool ignore the overall costs to taxpayers of higher taxes, declining health, and environmental cleanups. Ending pollution subsidies, and instituting a full polluter-pays policy on environmental permitting, monitoring, and cleanup is a simple way to combat all of these effects in a way that makes good fiscal sense.

General Tips

• Start with the state budget office, which often issues reports and recommendations to state officials. Follow-up with whoever wrote the report for more information.
• Cultivate contacts within state government who can alert your group to harmful state spending and other initiatives. Consider establishing a whistleblower hotline.
• Check with other environmental groups. Many groups will already be working on many issues and just need to be drawn together under a central framework. Sending out a general request for suggestions or help is a good way to be as inclusive as possible, and is also useful for keeping on-going efforts up-to-date and funded.

Other Useful Resources

Links

• Center on Wisconsin Strategy (COWS)
• Friends of the Earth: Green Scissors
• Green Capitol
• Green Scissors
• Taxpayers for Common Sense: Green Scissors Campaign

Reports

• Kerry Schumann, Director, Wisconsin Public Interest Research Group (WISPIRG) and John Keckhaver,
  Senior Policy Associate, Center on Wisconsin Strategy (COWS). “Wisconsin Green Budget Project: Protecting the Environment while Balancing the Budget.” January 2003.
• Friends of the Earth, Taxpayers for Common Sense, and U.S. Public Interest Research Group. “Green Scissors 2002: Cutting Wasteful and Environmentally Harmful Spending.” 11 April 2002.
• Green Capitol, CALPIRG, California Tax Reform Association, California League of Conservation Voters, California League of Conservation Voters Education Fund, and Friends of the Earth. “Green Watchdog 2003.” 2003.
• Friends of the Earth, Green Capitol, California Tax Reform Association, and CALPIRG. “Green Watchdog 2002.” 2002.
• Taxpayers for Common Sense and the Michigan Land Use Institute. “Green Scissors Michigan.” May 1997.
• Wood, David E. and Mary Beth Hughes. “From Stumps to Dumps: Wisconsin’s Anti-Environmental Subsidies.” Madison, Wisconsin: Center on Wisconsin Strategy, University of Wisconsin, April 2001.
• Conservation Council of North Carolina:
  • “Green Budget / Green Scissors 1998.” Carolina Conservationist. Summer 1998.
  • Conservation Council of North Carolina, North Carolina Environmental Defense, and North Carolina Public Interest Research Group. “2003 Green Budget: How North Carolina’s budget can protect clean water and clean air and conserve our natural resources.” 2003.
• Wolff, Patricia. “The Taxpayer’s Guide to Subsidized Ranching in the Southwest.” Center for Biological Diversity and New West Research. September 1999.